Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94342 Case Number: LCR14524 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning compensation to Rheintour Cutters for lay-off/short-time working in excess of three weeks during 1994.
Recommendation:
In examining this case, the Court has reviewed the submissions of
the parties and the verbal arguments made at the hearing together
with background documentation relating to the issue and acceptance
of Labour Court Recommendations 13911 and 14140.
The Court accepted that there was a firm commitment from the
Company that short-time working for Rheintour Cutters in 1993
would be limited to three weeks and in LCR 14140 provided full
compensation for the Company's failure to meet this commitment.
However, while it was clearly the hope and aspiration of both
sides to keep short-time working to a minimum in subsequent years,
the Court does not find that there was any undertaking from the
Company to limit short-time working to a specific duration.
Neither does the Court find grounds to justify the Union claim
that it was reasonable to interpret the three weeks undertaking
given in respect of 1993 as continuing indefinitely for subsequent
years. Such an interpretation would ignore market realities which
are the root cause of the present situation and negate other
provisions in the agreement regarding working arrangements.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim for the payment of compensation to Rheintour cutters in
respect of short-time working during 1994.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94342 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14524
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(2)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WATERFORD CRYSTAL LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning compensation to Rheintour Cutters for
lay-off/short-time working in excess of three weeks during 1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Cost Improvement Agreement dated 4th January, 1993
followed acceptance of LCR 13911. Under this agreement there
was a commitment given regarding the level of short-time
working for the Rheintour Section and this was the subject of
a Labour Court hearing on 15th July,1993 (LCR 14140 refers).
The Union contend that the commitment given regarding the
level of lay-off/short-time also covers 1994 and beyond and
submitted a similar claim on the Company for compensation for
1994 to that in LCR 14140 covering 1993. The Company reject
this and maintain that the only commitment given in respect of
short-time working related solely to 1993.
2. The dispute was referred by both sides to the Labour
Court under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The dispute was heard by the Court on 13th July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under LCR 14140 the Company was to do all it could to
provide work for the Rheintour Section. The Company instead
of increasing Rheintour work has reduced it with several
traditional pieces being redesigned and resulting in the work
content being eliminated.
2. The Company did not take the initiatives necessary to
increase demand for Rheintour products.
3. In 1986, there were 174 Rheintour Cutters and in
January, 1993, this number was reduced to 86 with a projection
of 20 people in the Rheintour Section by 1996. This position
was never stated to the Union during the negotiations on the
1993 Agreement.
4. The jobs available to Rheintour cutters to which they
could redeploy are no longer in the semi-skilled area and are
now less favourable than the available jobs in January, 1993.
The loss of earnings is now significantly higher than for
those cutters who redeployed in January, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The commitments and undertakings in respect of
short-time working related solely to 1993.
2. Clause 6 of the 1990 Terms and Conditions of Employment
Agreement provides for the implementation of temporary
lay-off/short-time working by the Company. This was
acknowledged, determined and upheld by the Labour Court in LCR
14140.
3. The Company plans its manufacturing requirements and its
manpower requirements based on forecasting demand for the next
12 months in the last quarter of each year. Accordingly,
details of lay-off/short-time working cannot be predicted
beyond a maximum of a 12 month period. It was not possible
therefore, to give an absolute indication at the end of 1992
or early in 1993 regarding what level of short-time working,
if any, would be required for 1994 or 1995 and beyond.
4. Redeployment opportunities have been turned down by
surplus Rheintour Cutters throughout 1993 and 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
In examining this case, the Court has reviewed the submissions of
the parties and the verbal arguments made at the hearing together
with background documentation relating to the issue and acceptance
of Labour Court Recommendations 13911 and 14140.
The Court accepted that there was a firm commitment from the
Company that short-time working for Rheintour Cutters in 1993
would be limited to three weeks and in LCR 14140 provided full
compensation for the Company's failure to meet this commitment.
However, while it was clearly the hope and aspiration of both
sides to keep short-time working to a minimum in subsequent years,
the Court does not find that there was any undertaking from the
Company to limit short-time working to a specific duration.
Neither does the Court find grounds to justify the Union claim
that it was reasonable to interpret the three weeks undertaking
given in respect of 1993 as continuing indefinitely for subsequent
years. Such an interpretation would ignore market realities which
are the root cause of the present situation and negate other
provisions in the agreement regarding working arrangements.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim for the payment of compensation to Rheintour cutters in
respect of short-time working during 1994.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
29th July, 1994 -----------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.